Do you trust Donald Trump?

 The international system must be protected and respected

 Victor Ângelo 

There can be no doubt: the international values ​​and standards, built over the last few decades, remain valid and must be fully respected. Political leaders and henchmen who fail to do so engage in illegal, often criminal, behavior and as such need to be confronted. The notion of a Western or less Western world, that doesn't count for anything. What matters are the rules that regulate the universal framework. When voting in the same direction as North Korea, something that should be unthinkable, the important thing is to remember which side of the conventions is right.

There were great moments that allowed these principles to advance and consolidate. It would be cowardice, or at least a mistake, not to remember them and not to insist on their scrupulous fulfillment. I will now mention a particularly clear list regarding the progressive regulation of international relations since the end of the Second World War – the United Nations Charter(1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the dozens of decolonisation and national independence processes in the post-war years and decades, the Vietnam War, the Helsinki Final Act (1975), which defined the rules of cooperation and security in Europe, including in the USA and Canada, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols of 1949 and 1977 on humanitarian issues and the laws of conflict, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), the approval of the Rome Statute of 1998, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and also the Paris Agreement on Climate Change of 2015. Symptomatically, during all these years it has not been possible to reach a common platform on the fight against terrorism, a complex and highly politically sensitive issue.

Among political criminals there are unfortunately too many names that can be highlighted. This week, on the third anniversary of the start of Vladimir Putin's aggression against Ukraine, his criminal responsibility deserves special mention. Not forgetting, either, his most recent ally, Kim Jong-un, the villain who crushes the population of North Korea every day and threatens half the world and the other with his missiles. When we talk about these individuals and it is noted that the current US administration voted in the United Nations along these criminals, a terrifying question inevitably arises: what kind of world do they want to push us into?

The answer is anything but simple. But we must continue to insist on the normative dimension. International rules exist, and they must be followed. It is, however, worrying to see the G20 or the G7, and some dimensions of the United Nations system, which have functioned as pillars of international democracy and cooperation between peoples, being disrespected by traditional dictatorships together with the ruffians who are now emerging in the public square.

The international political architecture is at risk of collapsing. It is already in ruins in Palestine, for the dramatic reasons that are known. It could soon collapse during negotiations on Ukraine's sovereignty. It is practically impossible to believe in a just peace, when one thinks of the protagonists who have now entered the scene. They are on Putin's side, for incomprehensible reasons, perhaps personal, perhaps linked to past accounts, and with the – chimerical – pretext of obtaining a divorce between Russia and China. A part of the international defense system will also be at risk when the next NATO summit, scheduled for June 24-26, takes place in The Hague. And the most significant outcome will happen on September 22 and 23, when the General Assembly will meet to discuss the future of the United Nations. We will then see what proposals will be put on the table, at a time when the UN is a fragile target, disrespected by people like Netanyahu and little understood by the rich of this world.

I cannot fail to mention Emmanuel Macron's recent trip to Washington. He would have tried to give the Americans the impression that a good deal of the decision-making power is in his hands when it comes to the EU. I'm not sure he managed to convinced them, for three reasons. First, because Washington knows that Macron is struggling in France with a very serious national crisis. Macron is closer to the past than the future. Second, because the United Kingdom and Georgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, have greater support in the White House. The new British ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, a shrewd Labourite like his boss Tony Blair was years ago, will do everything he can to turn Donald Trump around. On the other hand, Trump has a special liking for Meloni. And she doesn't die of love for Macron. And third, and most crucially, because Trump hates the EU, as it became clear days after Macron's visit.

Trump. Musk and Europe

 Europe faces the challenges of the Trump-Musk duet

Victor Angelo

No one knows for sure what's coming. Even American billionaires, people used to doing whatever they want, feel that the rules of the political game are changing. Many decided not to wait for the inauguration to show their subordination to the ideas and plans that the president-elect has already announced. It is an unusual submission. Is this a question of agreement of views, or mere opportunism? In fact, it seems to result from a combination of these two dimensions, a bet on a limitless nationalist economic liberalism and the hope of exponential growth in the balance of their personal accounts.

The absolute masters of cyber technology, digital platforms and mainstream media began to change their tune from the moment they realized that Trump would return to the White House. The latest example comes from Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and other global platforms. Yesterday's moralist has in recent days become a follower of the methods that Trump advocates. And that Elon Musk inspires.

Trump and Musk make up a team of unhinged and strangely reactionary narcissists. That's what we have, the choice is made. They pose an immeasurable danger to the stability of the United States, neighboring states and also to democratic Europe. And they don't just influence billionaires. Their tentacles are vast and powerful. Trump has transformed and pocketed the Republican Party, the Supreme Court, and controls all other branches of federal power. And Musk has in his hands key sectors of the economy and two essential instruments to manipulate public opinion – the X platform and his colossal fortune.

Trump and Musk reflect a dictatorship of a new kind, supported by an alienated, ultra-nationalist, arrogant, materialistic and selfish majority. It's populism on the attack, with modern techniques and a dominant economy. They relegate a dictator like Vladimir Putin to the second division of the championship. And although they consider themselves to be in competition with China, they are convinced that this game will end with their opponent's defeat. They forget or do not know that it is a fatal mistake to underestimate the competition between great powers. History shows us that rivalries like this have in the vast majority of cases ended up causing terrible armed conflicts between the antagonists. With fools in power, the likelihood of repeating certain tragedies experienced in the past is a possibility that cannot be ignored.

For the European Union, it is essential to know how to respond to the Trump-Musk Administration. In these situations, and first of all, our best response is active, intense and formal diplomacy. This means frequent contacts, discussions on equal terms, based on recognized values, reciprocity of measures and an essentially protocolary behavior, without effusions, in dealing with the Americans.

As far as possible, the point of contact on the European side should be well defined, be managed at the highest level and be based as much as possible on consensus. We cannot have, for example, Georgia Meloni expressing one position and Emmanuel Macron another. This is where the famous observation wrongly attributed to Henry Kissinger would make perfect sense: when Trump wanted to discuss with Europe he would call the designated contact. They will tell me that with Trump, rules and predictability do not count. I would retort that one must insist.

A second element of the response must involve strengthening the cooperation between Europe and certain regions of the globe, especially those that have a more tenuous relationship with the US: Africa and Latin America. To these I would add China and India, but with special precautions. Political and economic relations with these two giants are important for Europe, but they require a lot of balance, wisdom and extreme vigilance. And I wouldn't forget either Canada or Japan.

The third pillar of the response would consist of strengthening European integration, including in matters related to culture, banking union and defense. Culture helps us imagine our common future. The defense calls for coherence and more operational and industrial coordination. Trump's political line does not necessarily include military protection of Europe. With or without NATO, Europeans must be able to guarantee their independence. Relying excessively on distant and unpredictable allies is not a policy that can be recommended.

Rússia fora da Ucrânia

 Ano Novo: Fazer sair a Rússia da Ucrânia sem mais demoras (dn.pt)

A minha crónica de hoje no Diário de Notícias. 

Traduction par IA de ma chronique d'aujourd'hui

 Diário de Notícias (Lisboa, 12 JAN 2024)

Nouvel An : faire sortir la Russie d’Ukraine sans plus attendre

Victor Angelo

Vladimir Poutine a commencé l'année dans la violence : il a lancé jour et nuit sans arrêt un grand nombre de missiles et de drones sur plusieurs sites ukrainiens. Contrairement à ce que prétendent certains analystes, il a laissé entendre qu'il était pressé d'imposer la capitulation de l'Ukraine. Et il nous a rappelé que les dictateurs ne respectent pas les lignes rouges. Croire qu’on peut négocier avec des despotes est une illusion coûteuse.

Cette année, la Russie préside le groupe des BRICS. Vous voudrez montrer que vous êtes capable de diriger et de développer avec succès une organisation que vous considérez comme une alternative possible à l’ordre mondial actuel. Dans le cadre de la présidence russe, une série de rencontres internationales sont prévues, qui devraient aboutir à un sommet en octobre, dans la ville emblématique de Kazan. Pour pouvoir attirer ceux qui hésitent, la Russie doit apparaître comme un pays victorieux, puissant, mais apaisé, après avoir rétabli sa domination sur des territoires sur lesquels elle revendique des droits au vu d'un passé impérialiste. En d’autres termes, après avoir privé l’Ukraine de la souveraineté sur les quatre provinces orientales et conservé la Crimée, usurpée en 2014. Au droit et aux traités internationaux, Poutine oppose un récit historique archaïque et absurde, pour tenter de justifier l’hostilité, l’agression et les guerres frontalières contre les pays voisins. .

Au début de l'année, cinq nouveaux pays ont rejoint les BRICS : l'Arabie saoudite, l'Égypte, les Émirats arabes unis, l'Éthiopie et l'Iran. Le groupe compte désormais 10 membres, dont la plupart ont une réputation démocratique douteuse. Poutine aimerait atteindre la fin de son année de présidence avec au moins deux fois plus de pays que de membres des BRICS. Vous avez mentionné il y a quelques jours qu’une trentaine de pays étaient intéressés à y adhérer. Je considère que cette déclaration n’est guère plus qu’une simple propagande. Cela révèle cependant l’intention de fracturer la communauté internationale et de détruire les normes de coopération qui ont été construites dans le cadre des Nations Unies et d’autres organisations multilatérales depuis 1945.

Il n’appartient pas à l’Europe démocratique ou à d’autres États alliés d’intervenir dans l’adhésion, les politiques et les pratiques des BRICS, si tout cela se déroule conformément aux normes internationales. Par exemple, si le Brésil estime qu’il est mieux soutenu dans une alliance avec la Russie ou l’Iran que dans une relation étroite avec le G7, le choix vous appartient. Il ne peut cependant pas s’attendre en même temps à un traitement préférentiel de la part des pays du G7 ou de l’UE. Pas même de la part de la CPLP, qui ne devrait pas offrir du soleil sur l'aire et de la pluie sur les avant-toits, si l'on veut un jour la mener avec le courage nécessaire.

Mais l’enjeu fondamental, en ce début d’année, est différent : la Russie doit quitter l’Ukraine, sans plus attendre, et respecter sa souveraineté et son intégrité territoriale. Cela devrait être la préoccupation numéro un de l’UE et de ses alliés.

Les éléments de preuve les plus récents semblent montrer que les deux parties aux États-Unis sont proches d’un accord sur cette question et prêtes à renouveler leur aide à l’Ukraine. L’UE est absente. Les dirigeants européens parlent beaucoup et bien, mais ils n'agissent pas comme prévu. Il s’agit d’un leadership conversationnel, alimenté par la peur de la Russie. L’État membre qui a le plus aidé et qui compte le plus – l’Allemagne – craint de prendre la décision nécessaire qui modifierait considérablement le scénario existant : la fourniture de missiles Taurus à longue portée à l’Ukraine. Il s’agit d’équipements qui permettront de frapper avec poids et profondeur l’envahisseur russe et d’isoler la Crimée du reste de la Russie. Lorsque j’ai décidé d’écrire ce texte, j’ai pensé souligner l’indécision manifestée jusqu’à présent par Olaf Scholz. Entre-temps, la chancelière a adressé cette semaine une exhortation aux autres partenaires européens et une déclaration d'accord sur le plan d'aide de l'UE à l'Ukraine de 50 milliards d'euros, qui devrait être approuvé lors du sommet européen du 1er février.

Dans une Europe sans leadership clair, les propos de Scholz sont encourageants. Mais ils en savent trop peu et trop tard. Il y a urgence. Il faut avancer avec le Taurus, avec plus de munitions, avec de nouveaux systèmes de défense anti-aérienne, avec des drones de combat et une force de défense aérienne basée sur le F16. Et accompagner toute cette aide de nouvelles décisions politiques, qui accentuent une fois pour toutes l’isolement financier et diplomatique du régime Poutine. Expliquer constamment aux citoyens européens ce qu'a été l'héroïsme ukrainien, les avancées en mer Noire, dans les ports de Crimée, dans les attaques contre la flotte navale russe et en termes de défense face à la brutalité.

J'ai aussi pensé à critiquer les dirigeants de la France, de l'Italie et de l'Espagne : ce sont des économies majeures qui ont été des acteurs mineurs par rapport au Danemark, aux Pays-Bas, à la Suède et aux pays baltes, sans oublier le Royaume-Uni. Mais nous verrons comment ils se comporteront dans un avenir proche, face au défi de Scholz. Qu’ils réalisent ou non qu’il dépend également d’eux d’empêcher Poutine de continuer à constituer une menace pour la stabilité et la paix en Europe.

The future of Europe requires a thorough debate

Europe and the Coming Turbulence

Victor Ângelo

 

The launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe took place this week in Strasbourg, at the official seat of the European Parliament. The symbolism of Strasbourg is enormous. It represents reconciliation, peace, democracy, and solidarity among Europeans. These four desiderata are still as relevant today as they have been during the last seven decades, a period of continued construction  of the European political edifice. It is therefore important to remind ourselves of that, to recognize where we have come from and to define where we want to go in the next decade.

That is the aim of this initiative, which is due to be completed in March 2022. It would be a mistake to make a cynical assessment of the conference. However subtle it may seem, cynicism is the knife of the bitter and the downbeat. What is called for is a citizen's reflection that combines realism with idealism, that is a critical but constructive view. It is a matter of going beyond the rhetoric or the usual elucubrations.

The conference is a different test, which will allow us to measure the strength of citizenship movements. In fact, the biggest challenge facing the EU is precisely that which stems from the gap of ignorance or indifference between politics and the European institutions on the one hand, and people's daily lives on the other. Even in Brussels, people who live a few blocks away from the European district seem to be as disconnected from the EU as any family living in a small village in Portugal. A political project that is not understood by ordinary mortals is fragile. It can easily be jeopardized by its enemies.

The nine axes for reflection about the future ignore this disconnection. The topics are important: climate change and the environment; health; the economy, employment, and social justice; the EU's role in the world; rights and security; digital transformation; democracy; migration; and education, culture, sport, and youth. But it is a mistake to take citizens' support for the European project for granted. This is a fundamental issue. After an absolutely exceptional year, we find in European societies a lot of frustration, confusion, impatience, and a more pronounced individualism. We also have a set of internal and external enemies ready to exploit vulnerabilities and bring down the EU. That is why the discussion about the path to 2030 must begin with an analysis of weaknesses and threats.

A forward-looking assessment of the coming years shows us that we will be impacted by three major shock waves. The first comes from the accelerating use of cybernetics, in particular artificial intelligence, which will turn many Europeans into digital illiterates and redundant labour. If not properly addressed, it will further exacerbate social inequalities and job insecurity.

The second will result from new waves of uncontrolled immigration and the exploitation of this phenomenon by certain forces. It will not only be Viktor Orbán or Jarosław Kaczyński, or even Sebastian Kurz, who will divide Europe on this issue. The chances of Marine Le Pen gaining power in 2022 or of Italy being ruled by a coalition of ultranationalists in 2023 - in an alliance of Matteo Salvini with neo-fascist leader Georgia Meloni, whose Fratelli d'Italia party already mobilizes 18% of the national electorate - must be reckoned with. A front that brings together such politicians in several member states would cause a potentially fatal fracture for the continuation of Europe.

The third strategic shock - something to be avoided at all costs - could come from a possible armed conflict between the United States and China. Such a confrontation, which can by no means be excluded from the prospective scenarios, would have a devastating effect. European stability and prosperity would go down the drain.

The message, now that the debate has been opened, is that there can be no taboo subjects and no incomplete scenarios that do not consider the internal and external complexity in which we will move. Already, one fact is certain. There are years of great upheaval ahead of us.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)